ORDER :

Heard Mr. Vikram Poosarla, learned senior counsel representing Mr.Abhinay Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1531 of 2023 and Ms. Shreya Devaki, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.1534 of 2023, Ms. Shalini, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. The grievance in both the writ petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they were heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

i) Petitioner in W.P.No.1531 of 2023 i.e., Dr. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti, is the husband of writ petitioner in W.P.No.1534 of 2023 i.e., Ms. Usha Rani Maganti. The petitioner in W.P. No.1531 of 2023 sought a direction to the respondents to permit him to travel abroad viz., Sapin from 30.01.2023 to 05.02.2023 and to USA from 10.02.2023 to 28.02.2023, while the petitioner in W.P.No.1534 of 2023 sought permission to travel abroad viz., USA from 10.02.2023 to 22.03.2023.

ii) The petitioner in W.P.No.1531 of 2023 i.e., Dr. Venkata Ramana Maganti in his personal capacity had availed loan to a tune of Rs.75.00 lakhs from respondent No.1 Bank and he was the co-applicant for the loans availed by three other individuals. His wife, the petitioner in W.P.No.1534 of 2023 is a guarantor. She stood as guarantor for the aforesaid loan by extending property admeasuring 1.871/2 cents at Nidamanuru Village, Delhi Public School, Vijayawada, Krishna district Andhra Pradesh. Since the loanees failed to repay the aforesaid Loan amount, the respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act’). Original applications were also filed by Bank and writ petitioners and others have filed securitization applications under the provisions of SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. According to the petitioners, the respondent Bank had offered one time settlement proposals and the Bank had agreed to close all four loan accounts for Rs.3,75,00,000/-. They have paid the same amount. The details of the same are specifically mentioned in the writ affidavit in W.P. Nos.17271 and 366901 of 2022. However, according to the petitioners they are due and liable to pay an amount that is Rs.6,36,32,384.21/-. Whereas according to respondent No.1 Bank, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.6,36,32,384.21/-.

iii) While so, the Respondent Bank had issued Look Out Circular against the petitioners, continuing the same in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.17271 of 2022 and 366901 of 2022 contending that there are no criminal proceedings pending against them, there is no investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. The proceedings initiated by the Bank are under SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount and securitization applications and writ petitions are pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal and this Court respectively. Therefore issuance of Look Out Circulars and continuation of the same is in violation of the aforesaid guidelines dated 22.02.2021. It also amounts to violation of their right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

iv) According to petitioner in W.P.No.1531 of 2023, he is an indigenously developed technocrat, manufactured and supplied products like LED Video Display, Digital Loop Carrier on Optical Fiber, Telecom Software, Inter-Connect Billing personally and through M/s.MIC Electronics Ltd. He was the promoter and erstwhile Managing Director. He has been awarded several patents and he has attended seminars. When he was travelling to USA on 27.12.2021, he was prevented from travelling abroad by the Immigration Authorities on the ground of pendency of LookOut Circula